Ford v. Lamb
| Decision Date | 10 December 1902 |
| Citation | 116 Ga. 655,42 S.E. 998 |
| Parties | FORD. v. LAMB. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
SLANDER—EVIDENCE—DAMAGES.
1. A petition which alleges that the defendant falsely and maliciously said to a person with whom plaintiff was negotiating a trade that plaintiff "is no good; he will not pay for anything he gets, "—and thereby caused the trade to be broken off, the petition not alleging any special damage to plaintiff, sets forth no cause of action, and a demurrer thereto should be sustained.
¶ 1. See Libel and Slander, vol. 32, Cent. Dig. § 213.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court of Floyd county; John H. Reece, Judge.
Action by J. C. Lamb against I. D. Ford. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Dean & Dean, for plaintiff in error.
Seaborn & Barry Wright, for defendant in error.
An action for $3,000 for slander was brought by Lamb against Ford. The petition alleged: That plaintiff and Bass were negotiating a trade, and that defendant gratuitously said to Bass: That on account of these words Bass broke off the trade, "greatly to petitioner's worry and mortification." The petition further alleged that the words spoken were false and malicious, and injured petitioner in the sum of $3,000. There was no allegation as to the character of the plaintiff's business, or that he had any business office or occupation at all. The defendant demurred to the petition on the grounds that it set forth no cause of action, and that there were no special damages set forth. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
Under Civ. Code, § 3837, damages will be inferred from slanderous words (1) imputing to another a crime punishable by law, (2) charging him with a contagious disorder, or with some debasing act which may exclude him from society, or (3) making charges inreference to his trade, office, or profession calculated to injure him therein. Where the slander consists in disparaging words productive of special damage flowing naturally therefrom, "the special damage is essential to support the action." The plaintiff did not rely on the Code provision as to the three classes of slander in which damage will be inferred, but sought to put his case within the class last mentioned. The petition set out the disparaging words, but failed to allege any special damage flowing therefrom. True, plaintiff alleges that the words caused the negotiations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Poole
... ... of special damage." (Italics mine). Roberts v ... Ramsey, 86 Ga. 432, 433, 12 S.E. 644; Ford v ... Lamb, 116 Ga. 655, 42 S.E. 998; Morris v ... Evans, 22 Ga.App. 11, 95 S.E. 385. In the instant case, ... the language, as used by the ... ...
-
Jones v. Poole, 27875.
...be imputed, no action lies without proof of special damage." (Italics mine). Roberts v. Ramsey, 86 Ga. 432, 433, 12 S.E. 644; Ford v. Lamb, 116 Ga. 655, 42 S.E. 998; Morris v. Evans, 22 Ga.App. 11, 95 S.E. 385. In the instant case, the language, as used by the defendant, did not charge or i......
-
Griffin v. Branch
...resulted to him. Failure to allege these matters rendered the petition subject to the general demurrer of defendant Branch. Ford v. Lamb, 116 Ga. 655, 42 S.E. 998. (b) For similar reasons the petition falls short of alleging libel against Atlanta Newspapers. There is no allegation that thos......
-
Morris v. Evans
...immorality or vice be imputed, no action lies without proof of special damage." Roberts v. Ramsey, 86 Ga. 433, 12 S. E. 644; Ford v. Lamb, 116 Ga. 655, 42 S. E. 998. The words complained of do not charge the commission of a crime punishable by law. The most that can be said of the alleged d......